Topic 2: The Overcrowded Lifeboat
Situation
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat
intended to hold 7.
As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone
were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force
some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to
those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he
would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved.
Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and
everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if
the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would
be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die.
The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of
rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it
would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard.
As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried
for his action – charges were pressed against him for murdering some of the shipwreck victims.
Do you think the captain was morally justified to throw some of the victims into the sea
to drown? If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? Do you think the
captain deserved to be punished? If so, what would be the most appropriate
punishment?
You may consider these issues from perspectives such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics,
liberalism and retributivism.
Discussion
Why did the captain throw some of the victims into the sea? What was his reasoning?
Do you think the capital was justified in doing so from the standpoint of utilitarianism?
Do you think the capital’s action can be justified from the standpoint of Kantian ethics?
Why did some people on the lifeboat oppose the captain’s decision?
Why is it wrong to kill people? Is it morally justified to kill people under special circumstances?
Should we punish the captain for what he did?
If the capital deserved to be punished, what would be the most appropriate punishment?
Do you think the captain should be sentence to death? Why or why not?
Do you think the principle of lex talionis (‘an eye for an eye’) can be applied in this case?